(This
part continues my discussion from Part
3 concerning the history of the American Revolution relative to the
conclusion that freedom cannot be restored within the federal system as
the union currently exists.)

While
colonies’ mental resistance rose against their government, physical
submission prevailed. The colony of New York “begged to be excused
from making the provision [of tax]” to Great Britain.”[1]
But instead of recognizing New York’s right to govern itself regarding
internal polity of taxation and regulation, “the legislative power
of that colony was abolished by act of parliament, until they should submit
to make the provision which was required.”[2] In essence, parliament
acted as the “supreme law of the land” and nullified the colonial
authorities to govern themselves internally. And yes, New York “did
submit” as did the other colonies. [3]

The
colonies were feeling the burning sensation of oppression in their hearts
and were sending correspondence to the king’s governors in the colonies
and to the king himself, hoping for constitutional relief. Courts were
no help. The means of redress was set forth by their constitution and
they were following it. They were making lawful appeals. No relief came,
however.

Rather,
more taxes were imposed on certain commercial products, one of which was
tea, effectively on November 20, 1767. To effectuate this tax, Great Britain
gave authority to his agents to search and seize at their discretion for
the purposes of tax collection. Of course, the colonial tax monies paid
Britain’s agents and courts, all of which were established by British
constitutional authority. As long as they were a part of the system, they
supported the system. Thus, they were paying for their own enslavement.

The
colonies continued to feel frustrated. They began sending correspondence
to the citizens in Britain, in attempts to gain help to redress their
political concern. “In reply, they received the kindest of their
English friends, only exhortations to patience under their sufferings.”[4]
No help came from their fellow countrymen in Britain. The “other
states,” so to speak, gave no assistance either.

As a
method of “reclaiming freedom,” many of the colonists still
encouraged all of the colonies to oblige Great Britain, “inviting
their concurrence and co-operation toward procuring relief, in a constitutional
way.”[5] However, as it was accurately described concerning the
actions towards the colonies, “it is not in human nature to continue
long to return good for evil, affection for cruelty.”[6] Even still,
most colonists believed that their constitution provided a sound manner
for lawful and effective redress.

The
Virginia House of Burgesses convened in their 1768-9 session. Naturally,
the topic of discussion was the manner in which they were to rectify their
grievances against Great Britain. Out of that body of learned and freedom-loving
men, a set of resolutions were proposed which once again restated the
principles of self-government and denounced the unconstitutional actions
of the monarch and parliament.

As a
result, the monarch’s governor dissolved the Virginia House, as
they were in violation of the constitutional supreme authority. However,
these colonial legislatures did not stop self-government. They regrouped
under the same form and authority of the people of Virginia and operated
as the body-politic representatives outside of the British constitutional
system. All the while, the common consensus among the colonial leaders
was still, “we sincerely approve of a constitutional connexion with
Great Britain.” [7]

Ten
years after the stamp act was passed, the people of the colonies sent
their delegates to a continental convention to address their concerns
regarding the unconstitutional actions of Great Britain. For that convention
and to that end, the specific instructions given to that body of representatives
was, “insist with firmness on their constitutional rights…nevertheless,
[give] the most explicit pledge of their faith and true allegiance to
his majesty King George III.”[8] “They could not part with
the fond hope that those peaceful days would again return which had shed
so much light and warmth over the land.” [9]

However,
there was one man who “saw things with a steadier eye and a deeper
insight.”[10] “His judgment was too firm and manly to be amused
by false and flattering hopes. He had long since read the true character
of the British court, and saw that no alternative remained for his country
but abject submission or heroic resistance.”[11] This man was Patrick
Henry.

During
that same convention in 1775, Patrick Henry listened to the resolutions
made by those brilliant, yet disillusioned, men, who passively resolved
that “the warmest thanks of the convention, and of all the inhabitants
of this colony, were due and that this just tribute of applause be presented
to worthy delegates” and who diplomatically resolved that “unfeigned
thanks and most grateful acknowledgments of the convention be presented
to that very respectable assembly…for their truly patriotic endeavors
to fix the just claims of the colonies upon the most permanent constitutional
principles.” [12]

But
Patrick Henry had heard enough talk about the constitution; he had heard
enough talk about restoring freedom; and he had heard enough talk about
reconciliation with Great Britain through constitutional methods--methods
which only cemented their enslavement. Patrick Henry believed the situation
was much direr than what the delegates to the convention were expressing
with their all-talk-no-action resolutions. So, Patrick Henry “moved
the following manly resolutions”: “That a well-regulated militia
[be raised]…for the purpose of our defence.” [13]

Advertisement

The
men at the convention were painfully shocked, the implication of such
resolutions being, reconciliation was not possible and independence
was necessary. “[T]he resolutions were opposed as not only
rash in policy, but as harsh and well nigh impious in point of feeling…They
insisted that national comity, and much more filial respect, demanded
the exercise of a more dignified patience.” [14]

In truth,
most of these men thought freedom could be restored through the constitutional
process or were at least too fearful to suggest otherwise. Additionally,
as it concerned the practicality of Patrick Henry’s suggestion,
these men raised the same excuses for not defending themselves and not
seceding from Great Britain as many do today: “Were we a great military
people? Were we ready for war? Where were our stores—where were
our arms—where our soldiers—where our generals—where
our money?”[15] In other words, they did not have a sufficient military
and commercial system in place. Their independence as impractical and
quite dangerous, in their minds.

It was
at this time that Patrick passionately proclaimed his infamous “give
me liberty or give me death” speech. His first words highlighted
the hurdle to their cause, one of the most intrinsic characteristics of
human nature: “to indulge in the illusions of hope.” Henry
observed, “we are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth.”[16]
The painful truth was that using the constitutional methods in place was
not going to restore freedom. Constitutions were a thing which could be
formed and reformed by a people for their good upon their own will, but
a government’s actions determined whether the people were enslaved
or not and whether the government deserved loyalty or not.

From
this moment, Patrick Henry undeniably became the father of the American
Revolution. Single handedly, Patrick Henry motivated the continental
convention to resolve to defend themselves, proportionately and accordingly
to the apparent intentions of Great Britain. And even before then, “the
revolution may be truly said to have commenced with [Patrick Henry’s]
resolutions in 1765.” [17]

The
American Revolution started with Great Britain taxing the colonies beginning
in 1765 without their consent. How long did these colonies suffer the
“long train of abuses”? For all practical purposes, their
political plight was just 11 years. Yet, the States in America
indulge in the false illusions of hope generation after generation, thinking
that a “dignified patience” is noble, Christian and honorable.
Yet, we continue to bind each generation’s hands and feet with heavier
and tighter chains, all the while “voting for change.” How
long are we going to return good for evil and affection for cruelty?

If just
one of Edmund’s lists of abuses and encroachments is true, namely,
the taxing of the people without their consent, what justification separates
the federal government’s intentions from those of Great Britain’s?
What reconciliation can be mustered to redeem the sins of the federal
government to the point of blind and continued loyalty in spite of our
enslaved status? If the founding generation believed 10 years was too
long to suffer the evils of government, how many more generations must
suffer in America before we realize we do nothing more than appease and
embolden this tyrannical system by supporting it with our money, our future
and our sending representatives to the hub station of our own destruction?

Here
is the “painful truth” for this generation of people: freedom
will not be restored through the federal government in the union of the
United States as it currently exists. Voting is not the answer; independence
is the answer. Reconciliation is not healthy; freedom is healthy. A union
of fifty states is not the gateway to freedom; individual states that
incorporate self-government is.

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

Until
we begin listening to the Patrick Henrys of this generation, we can expect
more of the same slavery and oppression, but it will not be because we
did not have a clear example and illustration from our own history to
guide our path and to steer us clear from the tyrant’s agenda.

Timothy
Baldwin is an attorney from Pensacola, FL, who received his bachelor of
arts degree at the University of West Florida and who graduated from Cumberland
School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, AL. After having received
his Juris Doctorate degree from Cumberland School of Law, Baldwin became
a Felony Prosecutor in the 1st District of Florida. In 2006, he started
his own law practice, where he created specialized legal services entirely
for property management companies.

Like his father,
Chuck Baldwin, Timothy Baldwin is an astute writer of cutting-edge political
articles, which he posts on his website, www.libertydefenseleague.com.
Baldwin is also the author of the soon-to-be-released book entitled, Freedom
For A Change, in which Baldwin expounds the fundamental principles
of freedom believed by America’s forefathers and gives inspiring
and intelligent application of those principles to our current political
and cultural standing.

Baldwin is involved
in important state sovereignty movement issues, including being co-counsel
in the federal litigation in Montana involving the Firearms Freedom Act,
the likes of which is undoubtedly a pivotal and essential ingredient to
restoring freedom and federalism in the states of America. Baldwin is
also a member of freedom organizations, such as The Oath-Keepers, and
believes that the times require all freedom-loving Americans to educate,
invigorate and activate the principles of freedom within the States of
America for ourselves and our posterity.